Part I: Non-Physical Statements 1.     Firstly, I will create a concept and, for memorability, store it in the term "physical."   2.      Let "physical" things mean all things that consist of matter, space, energy, and/or time as well as anything which directly or indirectly influences matter, energy, space and/or time. [Objections] 3.      For example, a coat, air, the sun, people, memories, and thoughts all meet the above definition of "physical." [Objections] 4.      Now, in addition to "physical" things we will consider "physical statements." A "physical statement" is a statement such that one can imagine a "physical" outcome (or a series of these) that contradicts the statement. [Specifics] 5.      If and only if a statement is a "physical statement" will its truth have "physical" consequences. [Proof] Philosophy   6.       As commonly used, but not always (more on this later), most philosophical statements are not "physical statements." For example, by the common usage of "morally wrong," there is no scientific test to determine if murder is morally wrong. Nor are there any "physical" consequences of murder's wrongness. [Objections]  THEREFORE: 7.     If the statement "Murder is wrong," or any statement, is non-physical then its truth cannot possibly influence anybody's action nor belief for to do so would be to influence something physical [see point 2]. [Objections] So anybody who honestly does not murder because it is wrong must be motivated by a physical usage of "wrong," as shown by point 7. This can be extended to all philosophical terms. Either they affect something "physical" or they cannot possibly be of any relevance nor influence to any choice or action.   Part Two: Physical statements